IP Law | Entertainment Law | Technology & Innovation

In a case poised to redefine the intersection of copyright law and artificial intelligence, The Walt Disney Company and NBCUniversal have jointly filed suit against Midjourney, a prominent AI image-generation company. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 11, 2025, the lawsuit alleges sweeping copyright infringement tied to the unauthorized use of iconic characters and franchises in AI-generated images.

Case History

Midjourney, widely known for its generative image capabilities, has faced mounting scrutiny from rights holders over the use of copyrighted materials in training datasets. The complaint accuses the company of unlawfully replicating and enabling the dissemination of derivative works based on copyrighted characters, including Frozen’s Elsa, Spider-Man, Darth Vader, Yoda, Homer Simpson, and the Minions.

Plaintiffs allege that the platform facilitates the creation of derivative content that violates their exclusive rights under the Copyright Act, calling the AI-generated images “unauthorized reproductions and adaptations of protected works.”

“Piracy is piracy, whether it’s on a bootleg DVD or a neural net,” a Disney spokesperson stated.

Legal Claims and Relief Sought

The suit articulates claims of direct, vicarious, and contributory copyright infringement. Plaintiffs are seeking:

• Statutory damages for willful infringement;
• Injunctive relief to prevent further use of their IP in training data and generated content;
• Destruction of infringing materials created through the Midjourney platform.

The filing underscores the studios’ intent to protect not only their legacy properties but also the market value of licensed merchandise and derivative media, which generate billions annually.

Legal and Industry Implications

This action marks the first major lawsuit by top-tier entertainment conglomerates against a generative AI company, signaling a broader enforcement strategy across the media industry. The case is expected to test the applicability of the fair use doctrine in the context of AI training and output generation—an area where jurisprudence remains unsettled.

“The central legal question is whether training AI on copyrighted works constitutes a transformative use or an infringing one,” said Prof. Laura Chen, IP law scholar at UCLA School of Law.
“This case could become the precedent that defines the boundary between machine learning innovation and copyright infringement.”

Conclusion: Looking Ahead

Midjourney has not issued a formal response, but industry observers anticipate a fair use defense, arguing that the AI model’s outputs are not substantially similar to the original works and that the training process serves a transformative function.

Courts may also need to evaluate whether AI-generated works, prompted by human users but synthesized by algorithms, are legally “derivative” in the traditional sense—or constitute a novel category of creative output altogether.

As legislative and regulatory bodies examine AI’s impact on IP, this lawsuit will likely serve as a reference point for future policy. Lawmakers and industry leaders alike are watching closely, aware that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could dramatically reshape how AI companies operate—and how IP law is interpreted in the digital age.